AEI says "Pilots Not Reporting Aircraft Defects ... [Archive]

Grunf

12th Oct 2007, 22:19

...but When it is Convenient" :hmm::hmm:

Hello all.

This (provocative) title comes from AEIs report from PRNewswire site. Here is the original statement (http://www.airengineers.org/docs/Annual_congress/2007/aei_safety_warning_to_european_aviation_authorities.pdf).

This may (just may) start a heated debate but IMHO it deserves your thoughts. AEI is claiming what they claim.

Reporting the incidents when they occur or iimediately after (I mean when you land) should be a normal course of action not only by common sense but also by rules and regulations. Waiting for that last leg can cause more pain in the end, I think we all know that.

I can assure you that, from the OEM side, very often we see things that should have been resolved right away if properly reported.CHIRP or whatever other anonymous way of reporting exists where most of us work, right?

Of course, this is just one side of the story and it would be nice to hear what IFALPA (or others) and the regulators have to say about this. AEI's claim is challenging and needs an answer.
Cheers

Admiral346

12th Oct 2007, 23:11

How stupid is that!

At the end of that letter they even "threaten" CAA with: "The next time an incident/accident ocurres... we will demand an answer that will be published".

In everyday operation of an aircraft, there are technical faults that impair safety, and as my butt is in the ship, I will not fly without having fixed, no matter what MEL says, and then there is all that stuff, that gets written off by the technicians anyways. Like intermittend "L FADEC channel 2 fault". Now, I can put that into the book, and get stuck at some airport where there is no maintenace to put there stamp in the logbook (they don't fix it anyways, they just put their stamp in and tell you to go fly), or I can take that home to my homebase, and have my own mechs look it over. That is, of course, there is no maintenance action due acc MEL.

You might not agree, but I think I get paid to decide things like that...

Airbus_a321

13th Oct 2007, 10:13

well said, Admiral :ok:

NiteKos

13th Oct 2007, 10:21

In a nutshell Admiral, well said, spot on, so end of discussion.

Dream Land

13th Oct 2007, 10:35

Admiral, things would grind to a halt where I'm at without this type of common sense, well said.

yamaha

13th Oct 2007, 11:02

this has more potential than I initially thought.

So what was that under the Pablo story about rules being rules and not to be broken.

Now Admiral's comments are pretty indicative of the industry but they do go against the rules. So do we start firing every Captain out there?

Sad day for us if we are now advocating double standards!

Mad (Flt) Scientist

13th Oct 2007, 11:45

In everyday operation of an aircraft, there are technical faults that impair safety, and as my butt is in the ship, I will not fly without having fixed, no matter what MEL says, and then there is all that stuff, that gets written off by the technicians anyways. .....

You might not agree, but I think I get paid to decide things like that...

Problem is, do you have sufficient technical understanding of the details of the implications of some bland EICAS indication to make the assessment that safety is or isn't impacted? You're basically second-guessing the OEM and the regulatory authority who approve the Master MEL, and then the authority that approved your own MEL. 99 times out of a hundred, you may be fine, but if and when that 1 in 100 bites you in the ass, you're (legally) out on a limb.

Once in the air, those decisions certainly are the captain's prerogative. And I'm sure the airlines love the fact that you'll grease the wheels in the practical fashion stated. How likely is it, though, that they'll back you up if it turns out to have been the wrong kind of grease?

Two's in

13th Oct 2007, 13:17

What are next week's bombshells from AEI;

"Pope found to have Catholic leanings"

"Bear suspected of defacating in woods"

"Wilbur withheld details of frayed wing-warping string from Orville"

Earth shattering stuff if you've been living on Mars since man first took to the air.

Grunf

13th Oct 2007, 15:53

9 times out of a hundred, you may be fine, but if and when that 1 in 100 bites you in the ass, you're (legally) out on a limb.

Hmm, yeah, the devil is in the detail, right? We should see the opinions from all the sides - AEI said what they think, regulators - we know what they think so it would be nice if someone can quote something useful on that.

No one is attacking anyone and I think we all share the same responsibility. If one side decides to raise its voice, for whatever reason, IMHO we should all come out with a consensus in front of the public instead of everyone scrambling to its own PR machine to out-yell the "other" side, while being in the same boat (or airplane, more appropriately).
Cheers,

biggls

13th Oct 2007, 16:14

OK to overcome this problem, do away with the MEL and report all tech problems and get an Eng to defer. Probably require 50% Moor aircraft and crew for approx one month then all traffic will prob walk because of delays and prices

Mad (Flt) Scientist

13th Oct 2007, 16:44

Or officially give people the power to do what they are already doing, so that its legal and above board, not a dirty little secret?

near enuf is good enuf

13th Oct 2007, 17:29

The problem isn't the MEL, it is your company not having engineers or maintenance agreements at your outstations to deal with the defects.
So grunf, it's not a provocative title at all, it's exactly what happens and AEI have got it bang on.
Admiral,
NONSENSE!
"In everyday operation of an aircraft, there are technical faults that impair safety, and as my butt is in the ship, I will not fly without having fixed, no matter what MEL says"
Give me one example of an MEL item that could "impair safety". You are more knowledgeable of the technical aspects of your aircraft than the manafacturer is if you can! The reason you carry defects home is pure commercial pressure so don't pretend that you will second guess the engineer who is backed up by the MEL/Company Quality dept/Authority and Manafacturer.

Mad (Flt) Scientist

13th Oct 2007, 18:12

Actually, there ARE items on every MEL which do "affect safety" - not directly, of course, but as a removal of a level of redundancy. That intermittent "L FADEC channel 2 fault" in post #2 won't stop the FADEC doing it's thing right now. But when a different fault (or maybe two faults) occurs in the FADEC, there'll be no more channel 2 to pick up the slack. (For instance)

Master MEl items are proposed and approved on the basis that the increased risk, due to the loss of redundant systems, is acceptable for the time limit of the MEL - its a risk/exposure thing. Which is why some stuff is on a very short time to fix, and some stuff basically could be broken for weeks and no-one will care.

(The ultimate example is the CDL, rather than the MEL, where because there is deemed to be NO safety impact, the item can be left unfixed essentially for the life of the aircraft. Then it becomes a purely commercial decision.)

Basil

13th Oct 2007, 18:13

So what was that under the Pablo story about rules being rules and not to be broken.
The difference is that the alleged incident was not necessary for the operation of the aircraft. Making an informed command decision regarding an Acceptable Deferred Defect keeps the show on the road.

I appreciate that the thread starter refers to exceeding the terms of the MEL.

For instance: broken proximity switch on two crew aircraft cargo door - captain (who is hands on marine engineer) looks at door closing from inside hold - decides it is safe to proceed BUT calls maintenance control in UK for second opinion and authorisation - not in MEL but sorted.

yamaha

13th Oct 2007, 18:29

Sorry Basil don't see the point of your post. If its not in the MEL how can you be exceeding it?

Maybe AEI should have quoted some examples but I would doubt very much such an organisation would go to so much trouble if they didn't have some form of evidence. As they are apparently engineers I would assume they also appreciate the difference between an informed command decision and pushing your luck.

A statement from another thread:

Could I caution against the notion that European carriers are above falling short in the safety stakes? I have surveyed aircraft, quality and maintenance systems in several parts of the world; not all Third World countries have "Third World" standards

Something tells me something is brewing.

Grunf

13th Oct 2007, 19:40

As for reporting what AEI claims, it is easy to check. If not through regular company channels, reporting can be always done through CHIRP or anonymous post in FAAs SDR database.

One way or the other OEM side appreciates all the info it can get (I speak know personally, not on behalf of someone). I assume we all care very much for the overall safety and keeping the tab on all the difficulties gets us ahead of the "random events" that sadly happen, from time to time.

Cheers

Mad (Flt) Scientist

13th Oct 2007, 22:13

One way or the other OEM side appreciates all the info it can get (I speak now personally, not on behalf of someone).

Seconded, very much. For example...

We're in the middle of debating changing what is currently a mandatory, time-based, maintenance activity with some (hard to quantify) safety benefit into an on-condition action driven (sometimes) by flight crew reports. My comfort level in recommending this action will be influenced by the kind of informal feedback things like this thread give as to how pilots see their role in the whole process, so the more info is shared the happier I'll be.

Ignition Override

14th Oct 2007, 05:21

Admiral- Yes. Very many things require certain experience and judgement.

If a pilot has very limited time in an aircraft, for example with certain pneumatic/anti-ice system quirks, putting any of various common glitches in the logbook can create a canceled flight and a stranded crew (all hotel rooms might be sold out).

One problem is that Captains sometimes put a small problem in the logbook-due to HIS/HER misunderstanding of the system (i.e. all or no anti-ice on in order for the RAT/EPR indicator to operate, or a pack will not open with only APU air pressure), without asking the First Officer whether the glitch will operate after an engine is started etc.

Captains' or FOs' impulsive assumptions have created many totally unnecessary cancellations or major delays (1-3 hours). Even switching on ram air and leaving the ship when it is a 90*F. (this is outside the much hotter tail cone...) day is a good hint at the levels of ignorance (and lack of coordination) out there.

Why delay at 1300 (local) for a burned out position light with passengers to connect downline at a hub? Chickensh!t.

Mechanics tried to MEL our entire autopilot simply because the speed or Mach hold function did not engage. I told them "no". The autopilot worked just fine.

Dream Land

14th Oct 2007, 07:02

Agree with Ignition Override, an issue here is that four "b" defects is a self imposed maximum, number 5 grounds the aircraft. :}

Old King Coal

14th Oct 2007, 07:49

Ignition Override - spot on mate !

We had exactly that a while back.

For a short while one aircraft in our fleet required that one of the (two) E&E bay equipment cooling fans was operated in 'Alternate' mode.

On landing at some very remote (read 'no engineering assistance available whatsoever!') this fan tripped off.. seemingly no longer working in either Normal or Alternate mode.

Nb. This 'trip off' had been a known issue (the FO was certainly well aware of it and told the Captain as much... i.e. that it'd work fine once they got airborne).

But, oh no, the Captain writes it up in the TechLog and therein grounds the a/c - duh!

In order to rescue the flight, the company had to sub-charter a corporate jet to send an engineer, and also sub-charter another (much larger) aircraft to 'rescue' the passengers (as there was no hotel accommodation available for them; plus that a great many of these pax were booked on connecting flights). The crew also went ‘out-of-hours’... which therein required that a replacement crew be flown down in the corporate jet.

Now for those that’d say “Well what choice(s) did the Captain have?!”... Some common sense (possibly coupled with a bit of airmanship… along with listening to one’s FO) might suggest “How about getting airborne to see if it works and that, if not, one always has the option to land back” (especially as on this day the a/c was not limited by MLW... albeit that the QRH would now apply in any case)?

Anybody else ever notice just how many 'faults' seemingly develop on sectors that are returning to base... as opposed to an outbound sector ? ;)

Ps. It turned out that all that was required was that the fan needed a small bit of cleaning to remove some fluff following which it worked fine.

puddle-jumper2

14th Oct 2007, 08:56

Yes indeed, most deferrable defects appear on returning to base.
My company allow the captain to defer an allowable defect and sign it off when away from base anyway, so unless it's a "stopper" it's not going to change anything, (apart from loosing a sector on the allowable amount).

The problem we have been having recently though is a lack of qualified engineers at base. Although we have a new type and appreciate that engineers are being trained, the A/C has been at base 9 months now and still we are being asked to check with engineering before putting ANYTHING in the book at base in case there is know one to sign it off. :=

There was plenty of notice that the new type was going to arrive 9 months ago, by the time it arrived there should have been enough qualified engineers in place to cover the program - and the reason that there are not enough 9 months later...... yep you guessed it - cost, (as quoted to me by the chief engineer at base).:ugh:

If a company expects it's Capt's to be supportive in keeping the operation going it also has to be prepared to give that support where it is due.

411A

14th Oct 2007, 12:07

Pilot systems training has been dumbed down to such an extent that a new Captain (for example) not having flown the type before, is left in the lurch, and many times will not listen to a slightly more experienced First Officer (on type) who may well have seen these common faults before.

And, for a Captain, no less, to state that...I'll ground the aircraft for a fault, no matter what the MEL says...would usually be grounds for dismissal in many airlines, and quite frankly, rightly so.

I have even seen Captains who will write in large block letters in the tech log 'aircraft grounded' when in actual fact, the fault is easily deferred under the MEL, with little adverse affects, just to be spiteful.

Out the door with these folks, pronto.

applevid

14th Oct 2007, 15:27

carrying a mx item has been a tradition in the airline industy for more years than I have been around.

at some point though, the managers of the airlines have learned to lean on pilots to carry items instead of fix them at repair stations.

my airline had company mx at every airport we served. we rarely had MEL items/stickers...it was something to be proud of.

as money got tight, those poor mechanics (engineers) got laid off or were transfered to the main stations.

pilots started carrying more mx items without writing them up.

Isn't it really about the allocation of resources/money? (by the way, managers got raises!)

iqit

15th Oct 2007, 08:03

"And, for a Captain, no less, to state that...I'll ground the aircraft for a fault, no matter what the MEL says...would usually be grounds for dismissal in many airlines, and quite frankly, rightly so"

if in doubt ,you dont take off.
if you are not happy with the whole situation ,your safest / best decision is not to fly ,and thats why u get paid for ....not to make money for the airline ,but to take people from a to b safe.

i had an incident years ago ,were the capt of the flight was under presure from all ,the previous day ,to take a plane with a faulty tcas.
not a requirment to despatch, but he delayed the flight till it was fixed.
sure enough next day ,when we flew together , we got a tcas alert with the other airplane not taking any corrective action .very closed call .

00seven

15th Oct 2007, 12:03

Admiral,

It is a requirement to report ANY defect prior to the next sector. The gentleman who made the comment that your stupid thought process is to second guess the failure is quite correct.

Again, its fols like you who don't follow procedure that add to the already negative industry image but rather employ the old 'TOD' copout B/S because you are too gutless to do the right thing for fear of losing your job and just so you can get home and help a Company that screws you when you bend over to pick up your keys.

Mach trim

15th Oct 2007, 13:15

MEL example.

Our MEL , A-320 says you can go with no nosewheel steering.

Amazing!!

Anyone done it successfully ?

for me it is a definite no go !!

lomapaseo

15th Oct 2007, 13:56

Very interesting thread and of course the usual disagreements between the pilot community about what is safe :)
I do appreciate the use of defined MEL (deferred actions) to provide a level of safety within a reasonable level of practicality.
I am also aware that significant risk of decreasing safety may arise from unplanned maintenace tasks at outstations.
I am not aware of deferred maintenance actions (as examples cited above in this thread) that contributed to an accident on the same day that they were discovered
Therfore I conclude that the current level of safety has accomodated the issue raised by the AEI within our ability to measure risk.

yamaha

15th Oct 2007, 14:32

It isn't necessarily about accidents, its also about people like you increasing the risk factor for ALL ONBOARD based on your understanding of the technical situation. An understanding that is often based on little to no understanding of the possible technical consequences. Therefore you are not in a position to assess the risk. You do it on a misguided knowledge that it didn't happen last time but you most certainly didn't make the assessment based upon sound technical knowledge.

As has been mentioned on the Pablo Mason thread many times: "rules are rules and anyone breaking them deserves to be fired"

It is a legal requirement for the crew to enter defects into the log book at the end of each sector. It is then up to engineering and nobody else to have them cleared or deferred as appropriate by someone qualified to do so. In some cases this may well be the captain if authorised to do so.

If not you only have one course of action to remain within the regulations, call for an engineer.

Any other behaviour carries the risk of being fired and could also be considered pure stupidity.

Techman

15th Oct 2007, 19:09

I have to agree with 411A. Systems training for pilots have become poor. It might satisfy the minimum requirements, but it is poor.

That might also explain the angst that emanates from posters such as yamaha. Poor systems knowledge and understanding leads to poor understanding of the implications of a malfunction. It might also lead to a belief that everybody has the same poor level of knowledge. Even when the opposite is obvious.

hawker man

15th Oct 2007, 19:44

Pilots fly the aircraft and report any defects in the tech log.
Engineers fix or defer the defects according to the regulations.
Keep it like this and you will be ok.
Try standing up in court after an accident and saying the person in maintroll said it would be ok to fly with that defect if you survive the accident that is.

Basil

15th Oct 2007, 20:25

Try standing up in court after an accident and saying the person in maintroll said it would be ok to fly with that defect if you survive the accident that is.

I am quite comfortable with carrying a defect which is approved by me and maintrol and with a signal from a maintrol manager in my pocket (and a copy left at point of departure).
If either one of us is not happy then the defect will be repaired before departure.

Mach trim

15th Oct 2007, 23:33

Isn't that the key, open communications with maintenance ? Good CRM.

It's easy to sit here and say don't fly with a late flight and time pressure.

I agree one has to have the systems knowledge and experience to back up a decision to disagree with maintenance and or the MEL.

The MEL will not advise you always on the interconnectivity of different items will it ?

Basil is right if either one has doubt then ...

itwilldoatrip

15th Oct 2007, 23:59

Mach Trim

A320 nose wheel steering MEL is on all A320's. Proves your training is not up to scratch, never been told about differrential braking. Before you asked yes have dispached an aircraft with this MEL and been on board.:=

411A

16th Oct 2007, 01:18

The MEL will not advise you always on the interconnectivity of different items will it ?

Perhaps not on Airboos aircraft, and indeed on some Boeing types, however if one was to glance at a Lockheed TriStar MEL, one finds all the relevant information.
Having said this, the TriStar positively has more systems redundancy than most any other type, so perhaps is a bad example...:rolleyes:
When you combine poor pilot systems training together with inadequate information from the manufacturer, the Commander is between a rock and a hard place, and certainly is ill-prepared to make a reasonable decision. This is very unfortunate.

It all comes down to cost, doesn't it?
It costs money to have detailed systems knowledge taught, so this item is overlooked for expediency.:ugh:

nnc0

16th Oct 2007, 01:24

ARINC

16th Oct 2007, 04:27

Now for those that’d say “Well what choice(s) did the Captain have?!”... Some common sense (possibly coupled with a bit of airmanship… along with listening to one’s FO) might suggest “How about getting airborne to see if it works and that, if not, one always has the option to land back” (especially as on this day the a/c was not limited by MLW... albeit that the QRH would now apply in any case)?
Anybody else ever notice just how many 'faults' seemingly develop on sectors that are returning to base... as opposed to an outbound sector ?
Ps. It turned out that all that was required was that the fan needed a small bit of cleaning to remove some fluff following which it worked fine.

Not wishing to sound to sensationalist but if the E&E overheats it will ruin your day big style. It's unlikely that your aircraft has fire detection and suppression in the E&E bay.

00seven

16th Oct 2007, 04:53

Mr Moderator,

If you are going to re-word my posts without my knowledge, please remove my posts completely rather than re write my thoughts using you're own language and grammar.

alapt

16th Oct 2007, 07:27

Being an engineer and pilot, I am in a better position to maybe have a clear understanding of both jobs and responsibilities.

The pilot has clear cut rules to follow and is under pressure from the company to complete his task, going from point A to B to C and possibly D, safely. The Engineer has to ensure that the aircraft is safe and ready for flight, but is also under company pressure to follow the program and especially reduce the costs involved.

The common denominators are MONEY and RESPONSIBILITY. Lets face it, both are just as important and therefore both should work together. We (both groups) are being divided by people who do not know the difference between an air speed indicator and a spanner.

When I am told to avoid putting things in the log book, I am effectively being asked to lie and use MY license number as proof that there are no snags. I will ask the engineer if he would like to sign the snag without it being fixed and use his license and number to prove it? Usually that solves the problem and we discuss what should be done.

So, where does that leave us as a single group? Alone, we fight each other to prove who is right or wrong. As a collective group, we could tell the companies and been counters 'Hey this needs to be fixed ASAP'.

I for one, and I suspect most flight crews do not want to ground an aircraft away from base, so we nurse the aircraft home. What more can the companies ask from us?
The bottom line is understanding between the two groups. We depend on each other to see our families at the end of the day (Especially the pilots) and therefore WE should COLLECTIVELY decide when the aircraft can fly so we can have a united force or front to counter our enemies!
(United we stand, Divided we fall.....)
Pilots and Captains, I know what you are thinking......We know who accepts the aircraft as being ready for flight (Safe and/or legal is the question)
My two cents worth.......but the battle remains, be safe

yamaha

16th Oct 2007, 10:41

I must admit that it's an interesting political strategy by AEI. Flight Crew complain but Maintenance jobs are being ravaged and shipped overseas.
By getting tougher on MEL issues and seeking to bring some regulatory clout to bear, they are putting more pressure on carriers to give maintenance more respect than has been shown.
Apparently this is spot on. Talking to an engineer this morning he claimed that letters had been written to most pilot associations including ECA. The response the engineers got with their "lets work together" on this was zero, he says.
Some of the things said about maintenance and budgets, company pressures and pilots overstepping the mark in a manner thankfully not published here was scary.
The impression I got was that they feel boxed into a corner and calls for assistance hasn't drawn any help so they are reverting to more desperate measures. (my opinion and this is not a quote).
He also made a very apt comment that we should all perhaps think about.
"Pilots in isolation giving the company commercial assistance is one thing
Engineers in isolation giving the company commercial assistance is one thing
Company cutbacks in isolation in order to assist the company commercially is one thing. All 3 together is down right stupid and unsafe"

hawker man

16th Oct 2007, 17:17

This year i did a Human Factors course with Baines Simmons Limited.
It was the best course I have ever been on and I have done lots with over 30 years in aviation. I suggest everyone involved in aviation should do this course, it will open your eyes and make you think about every decision you make.

Mach trim

16th Oct 2007, 20:21

I agree about the human factors as I would like to see more human factors training alongside CRM.

The following examples, proposed by Jean-Jacques Speyer, with
Airbus Industrie, illustrate this point:
“The link between A320 nosewheel steering and the Air Data Inertial
Reference System (ADIRS) would have been impossible to achieve in
previous design generations. Yet, the conceptual advantage - nosewheel
steering sensitivity as a function of aircraft speed - is quite
straightforward. As with most automation concepts, however, the
benefits are often counterbalanced by an increased need for an in-depth -
operational understanding which may not be intuitive.
A pilot experiencing difficulties with nosewheel steering may need to work through the operation of the steering, the ADIRS and their interactions in order to understand and cope with the anomaly.
Similarly, the advantage of linking both pressurisation computers with both Flight Management and Guidance Computers (FMGCs) and all three ADIRs on the A320 is that planned and actual flight profiles can be continuously compared for adequate pressurisation control in any phase of flight.
However, the pilot is then placed in the position of having to understand the interactive system functioning in order to exercise the ultimate accountability function.”

itwilldoatrip,
"A320 nose wheel steering MEL is on all A320's. Proves your training is not up to scratch, never been told about differrential braking. Before you asked yes have dispached an aircraft with this MEL and been on board."

Differential braking! wow that's a bloody surprise, got me there, you must have been trained by Luthansa.

"Been on board " does that mean you were a pax,crew or engineer ?

What part of my training is not up to scratch exactly my friend ?

Please enlighten me, as I am here to learn.
You are missing the point here.
The point is it is the Captain's decision and the consequences are not to be taken lightly and yes your ass could be sent to jail. you have to cover your ass no one else will.

You need minimum 15 knots on the corners and if you use too much differential thrust and the nose gear gets stuck to full travel or 90 degrees you are hooped and you need a tow. The operational procedure says you need 5 knots to initiate a turn but this does not seem fast enough.Sure use differential braking combined with differential thrust on the corner.

I brought it up as we recently had a Captain who taxiied out tried it using differential braking and thrust, he did not like the way it turned corners and returned to base. Good for him that was his decision and the decision to dispatch and go in your MEL case was fine as well, as it was completed safely ( wasn't there )

Sure you can go out and complete the flight safely but you could also go off the side of the runway or taxiway.
Put some crosswind rain,narrow runway or a reverser problem into the equation.

Why take the risk of going off the side of the runway or a corner on taxiway ?

Or having the nose stuck at 90 degrees and you block the taxiway until you get a tow ?

Old King Coal

17th Oct 2007, 04:50

ARINC - Your profile says your an Avionics Engineer and you've said Not wishing to sound to sensationalist but if the E&E overheats it will ruin your day big style. It's unlikely that your aircraft has fire detection and suppression in the E&E bay.

Therein are you suggesting that a complete failure of the E&E bay equipment cooling system might lead to a fire in said same compartment?

If so, I find that very strange as nowhere in my Boeing aircraft systems manuals (B737 & 757) and / or the QRH's for said same aircraft does it suggest this... or have Boeing got their design wrong and / or ommited / overlooked the fitting of appropriate preventative measures for such a condition?

Ignition Override

17th Oct 2007, 05:17

411A:

You might have seen this numerous times over the years, but sometimes our highly-experienced Ground Instructors will say something such as "The FAA requires us to teach you That, but what you also need to know is This...". They amplify and add details which allow us to understand and give us the inside knowledge of a system or two.

At one time, much info had disappeared from the aircraft manual, but gradually, much more useful info was built into the manual with a "chunking" (maybe that strange phrase came from digesting sour lutefisk before gripping a large glass of Leinenkugel ?), or building block approach.

The airline Training Departments were once afraid of providing too much info-in contrast, the Navy C-9 manual gave you too much. No surprise there.
Anyway, the alleged idea was that anything could be 'fuel' (no pun intended) for an FAA :8 Inspector's (or company Check Airman's..?) burning search for "trivial pursuit" during an oral exam for the type rating or whatever. Even now, if the emergency inverter works, fine....:zzz: The right #2 TR is powered by the Gnd Service Bus....:zzz:
Too little caffeine in that vending machine 45-cent mocha.

BRE

17th Oct 2007, 09:23

Machtrim: "Differential braking! wow that's a bloody surprise, got me there, you must have been trained by Luthansa."

What are you alluding to? Just curious, not trying to nitpick or anything...

itwilldoatrip

18th Oct 2007, 08:33

I think Machtrim showing inexperience BRE, especially if he doesn't know about diff braking. First he says dispaching under MEL without steering is no go, said MEL refers to this in ops proceedures with assymetric thrust. Then he say's tried it on a previous sim ride, now someone in his company tried it.

Bit of a dreamer probably wants engine changed with a 3 degree EGT shift or puts defects in log that happened previously say 40 log pages ago.

What happened to pilots who use commonsense. Machtrim a product of the nanny state:D

Mr.Brown

18th Oct 2007, 14:49

I don't think the intention of the AEI in raising the issue is to highlight the isuue of a cup holder in the flight deck being broken for a whole days flying before being entered as a defect.
What they are trying to highlight is the need for aircraft safety to be controlled, in an operating enviornment by engineers and pilots and not the accountants.
Regardless of how many pilots/engineers say safety comes first, everyone will will at some stage be put under commercial pressure which might compromise safety. Will everyone react in the same way?
I'm sure that lots of you out there will make the best decision every time based on safety but it only needs one decision.
With the industry becoming more and more self regulating to suit the accounting departments there is a need for the NAA's to take back more control.
This statemant and request by the AEI is a step in the right direction.

Mach trim

18th Oct 2007, 21:57

itwilldoatrip,

You are a funny guy.It does appear that you have a reading disability though,not understanding what I have written.

never had a problem with an engineer in 14 years in aviation, usually phoned the engineers before writing up defects in the tech log unless it is totally clear, also have pints with engineers after work as well.

I can bet you have had problems dealing with pilots over the years as I detect a little resentment and even animosity there,

Would you like to tell us about it ? It would be good to hear one of your stories for the thread.

ARINC

18th Oct 2007, 22:49

Therein are you suggesting that a complete failure of the E&E bay equipment cooling system might lead to a fire in said same compartment?
If so, I find that very strange as nowhere in my Boeing aircraft systems manuals (B737 & 757) and / or the QRH's for said same aircraft does it suggest this... or have Boeing got their design wrong and / or ommited / overlooked the fitting of appropriate preventative measures for such a condition?

King Coalface...

Thank you for taking the time to read my small contribution, yes I'm an Avionics engineer and yes I've seen fried E&E bays and yes it very well may say nothing about it in your QRH, AOM, AMM or even yesterdays newspaper. The fact remains and common sense dictates if critical components in EE bays are not cooled (which is why fans are fitted in the first place) then said black boxes will at the very least go south and may even get very very hot. sounds like a source of ignition to me. These areas are known generically as unprotected spaces and fire risk is always a worry here.

Some reading...

http://avtoday.com/av/categories/commercial/765.html